reply to post by LesMisanthrope
Using left and right and up and down in the same sentence to promote dualism, when the 4 of them—not the two of them—are merely directions we have
given names to, is not the greatest example.
I was using a spatial example to highlight the ubiquity of duality. That there is always a basic twoness to things. Of course, when you say "duality"
you mean the opposite of 'unity', as duality includes within it the whole concept of multiplicity.
It's a basic quantification of reality.
Man and woman don't discover this fact, they create this fact and contrive it as a mere linguistic convenience.
You take a very obvious reductionist attitude to the discoveries of mans consciousness.
The concept of two is not merely a concept, but a center about which floats a particular perception
of reality. Two may thus be a 'symbol' for
a specific idea, but it more broadly refers to an intrinsic property of this reality.
I guess to see it as I see it necessitates the acceptance of ontology, and teleology. That things necessarily exist in some efficient way relative to
the observer, and that they existent in a particular way to convey some rationalization of it by a conscious mind.
A sperm can act as many times as it likes, but no life will come to bear if there's nothing to fertilize.
You're missing the point. What's indicative of the dynamic or process underlying the fact is what's crucial; the sperm acts, and the egg is passive.
The egg awaits the sperm, similarly to how most women await the courtship of a man. Again, the same idea reflected both in the biological co-mingling
of male and female, and the entirely social and psychological need for man to pursue females, which is probably also reflected in the biological
anthropology of men being strong and 'active' in the external world in which they function, while the woman is tending to the 'internal' and personal
role as mother and teacher to her children, conveying the closeness and innerness of love to her children, expressing again the concept of woman being
'inner', enveloped by the public activities of her husband who procures sustenance from without, and passes it on in to the wife who transmutes this
activity into building a home.
I'm saying there's an amazing consistency in these basic divisions and apparent complementarity between the masculine and feminine, completely
reflected into this world conveying consistent metaphysical principles to the human mind.
Take again the example of how a woman - the feminine - has her menstrual cycle synchronized with the phases of the moon. The moon, again, is nothing
in itself - in terms of the light it conveys at night. The moon is the 'passive' again, in receiving it's energy from the sun.
Is this all to you some massive coincidence??
Both are absolutely and equally necessary, with no gender taking precedence over the other.
You're misunderstanding me. I never said they weren't equal. I said they were equal, yet different from one another. You can't say yin is more
important than yang; they are equal because without the other they simply do not exist.
I'm not advocating either, it should be mentioned, that I care to apply this concept to society. I've made clear through this thread that I'm speaking
strictly religious terms. In religious terms, it is invaluable to be in consonance with natural law, and therefore, that a man serve as the priest,
representing the hidden God. Man, conversely, is collectively the feminine in this relationship, emphasizing the passivity of our relationship with
the divine. At least at church, or synagogue.
In society, I'm actually for a separation of church and state. In some countries, of course, Religion should become a fixture of the state, for
instance, in the US, Christianity is an acknowledged aspect of the American people and the American political system; it is God who is constantly
invoked, in Christian terms especially. Israel has a public calendar coordinated with Jewish holidays - and not Christian, or Islamic holidays. In
Egypt, or Pakistan, it is the holy days of Islam. In India, it is the festivals of Hindu tradition.
This doesn't mean we should start persecuting minorities, since at the democratic level we defend these minorities.
This is because the female gender in those cases is bigger and stronger, not because it lives at a lower level of existence.
That's the thing. There is a parallelism between their biological state, vis a vis man, and their ontological state vis a vis man.
The lowness of a kingdom biologically, bespeaks an ontological condition appropriate for being at that level of existence. This is so because man -
the only creature able to discover these realities - becomes the 'center' or basis, by which all things in existence are compared to. This is a
completely natural and logical starting point.
But we cannot negate their place in the universe in spite of the appearance that we live a somehow higher existence.
Undoubtedly. There is no reason why a negative connotation of their existence should not mean a positive purpose in their existence.
From our moral
perspective, the way a female spider treats a male spider is horrific. But, God created it that way; there is a beauty of sorts
to this reality, but this beauty in no way impacts our moral reservations towards it. It is beautiful, yet I wouldn't look to it for moral advice.
edit on 25-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)